June 2013

June 26, 2013

The current attorney general for the District of Columbia, Irvin Nathan, has said he won't run to keep his job when the city switches to an elected attorney general in 2014. But that doesn't mean he lacks strong feelings about how the office should operate after he's gone.

Speaking on a panel yesterday afternoon with two of his predecessors, Nathan pitched a series of changes to the attorney general's office leading up to the next election, including expanded subpoena power and internal restructuring that would remove the attorney general's oversight of the general counsels of D.C. agencies.

Nathan sparred with his immediate predecessor, Peter Nickles, now a senior counsel at Covington & Burling, and former attorney general Robert Spagnoletti, a partner at Schertler & Onorato, over their visions for the office's future.

Outside the
Supreme Court today, leading attorneys in the fight for same-sex rights
heralded the U.S. Supreme Court rulings today in the Defense of Marriage Act
and Proposition 8 cases.

"Today the
United States Supreme Court in two important decisions brings us that much
closer to true equality," David Boies, chairman of Boies, Schiller and
Flexner, said. "In the decision striking as unconstitutional the so-called
DOMA or Defense of Marriage case, the United States Supreme Court held there
was no purpose for depriving gay and lesbian couples the right to marry the
person they love.”

President Barack Obama directed Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. on Wednesday to ensure the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act is implemented "swiftly and smoothly."

"I applaud the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act. This was discrimination enshrined in law," Obama said in a written statement issued about 90 minutes after the ruling. "The Supreme Court has righted that wrong, and our country is better off for it."

Obama said he told Holder to work with other cabinet members "to review all relevant federal statutes to ensure this decision, including its implications for Federal benefits and obligations, is implemented swiftly and smoothly."

Democratic members of Congress quickly praised the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings Wednesday in same sex marriage cases and pledged to introduce legislation that would finish the job of fully repealing the Defense of Marriage Act.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), whose Respect for Marriage Act during last Congress got 32 cosponsors but not a vote, said she was "thrilled" by the opinions. "I will introduce legislation ASAP to repeal discriminatory DOMA once and for all," Feinstein announced on Twitter.

Today's U.S. Supreme Court rulings on same-sex marriage were met with cheers of "victory" from civil rights organizations nationwide, while conservative groups maintained the decisions left the national debate over gay marriage unresolved.

"Today’s historic decisions put two giant cracks in the dark wall of discrimination that separates committed gay and lesbian couples from full equality," said Chad Griffin, president of the gay rights advocacy group Human Rights Campaign, in a statement.

The high court struck down as unconstitutional a section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act denying federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples in states that permitted gay marriage. In a separate case, the court let stand a lower court ruling barring enforcement of California's ban on same-sex marriage, Proposition 8.

Chief Washington correspondent Marcia Coyle was inside the Supreme Court today for the announcement of the opinions in the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8 cases. Coyle, a veteran Supreme Court reporter, spoke with NLJ's Mike Scarcella about the two rulings.

Here's Coyle's initial take:

The rulings today will be a clear victory for gay rights organizations. Getting DOMA struck down in states that do recognize same sex marriages, and having the district court injunction be what is left in California in the Proposition 8 case, is clearly a victory for gay rights organizations and proponents of same-sex marriages.

Although the court was divided in its rulings on both the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8, the justices, as expected, did not announce a national right to marriage for same sex couples.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion in the DOMA case, made clear that his opinion was confined to same sex couples who are married under their state laws. That means that married same sex couples in twelve states, and the District of Columbia, should be able to receive federal benefits and other federal entitlements. DOMA affected more than 1,000 federal laws.

A divided U.S. Supreme Court today declared unconstitutional the Defense of Marriage of Act of 1996, which blocked federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples. Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the opinion for the court.

The court, separately, let stand a lower court ruling that blocked enforcement of California's Proposition 8, the state ballot initiative that banned gay marriages. The Prop 8 opinion is here. The court did not reach the merits of the case, however.

"Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways," Kennedy wrote. "By its great reach, DOMA touches many aspects of married and family life, from the mundane to the profound. It prevents same-sex married couples from obtaining government healthcare benefits they would otherwise receive."

In dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote: "Some will rejoice in today’s decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat."

The Proposition 8 ruling declined to find standing for proponents of Proposition 8 to defend the constitutionality of the measure when the state itself declined to do so. The ruling likely clears the way for same-sex marriage in California.

"The Court does not question California’s sovereign right to maintain an initiative process, or the right of initiative proponents to defend their initiatives in California courts," Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. said. "But standing in federal court is a question of federal law, not state law."

Ready? We're about an hour away from the Supreme Court's release of opinions.

We've put together a collection of articles by The National Law Journal Supreme Court correspondent Tony Mauro and chief Washington correspondent Marcia Coyle about the historic fight over same-sex marriage.

Have a look as you wait for the Supreme Court buzzer, set for 10 a.m. Check back in with The BLT and NLJ.com today for reports and analysis on today's expected rulings on the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8.

The Supreme Court's historic two-day scrutiny of the issue of same-sex marriage showed the justices as a cautious bunch — wary about ruling on a subject that is new to them, especially when it came to the court in the form of two cases weighted down with procedural baggage.

Yet after it was all over, it seemed possible that the court is on the verge of a landmark ruling overturning the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), while it might punt on California's Proposition 8 by finding that the ballot initiative's backers lacked standing to defend it.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday concluded its historic two-day scrutiny of the thorny issue of same-sex marriage, displaying wariness about ruling on the subject even as it appeared possible that the justices will strike down the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

With hundreds of partisans on both sides parading and debating in front of the court on Tuesday and Wednesday, the justices inside probed all aspects of the issue from the philosophical and political to the procedural.

The first sign of how big Tuesday's Supreme Court arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry would be was visible even before the justices took to the bench.

Stacks of briefs, not usually seen on the bench, were piled high—nearly 100 were filed—in front of several justices' seats. Later, when Justice Antonin Scalia announced the ruling in Florida v. Jardines, he joked that he was speaking "from behind these briefs here."

The courtroom was packed, with luminaries of the gay rights legal movement sprinkled throughout the spectator seats—Paul Smith, Chai Feldblum, Evan Wolfson, Suzanne Goldberg and Pamela Karlan, to name a few.

Decision Day: The
U.S. Supreme Court will meet today at 10 a.m. to issue opinions in three
remaining cases, including the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8 cases.
The court on Tuesday struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act in a 5-4
ruling, The National Law Journal reports.

Found: Russian
President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday confirmed that Edward Snowden, the former
National Security Agency contractor who leaked classified documents about U.S.
surveillance, is at a Moscow airport, The
New York Timesreports. But Putin didn't appear willing to extradite Snowden
to the United States.

Keystone XL: President
Barack Obama on Tuesday said he won't sign off on the Keystone XL pipeline if
its construction would create more greenhouse gas emissions than if it wasn't
built, The Washington Post reports.

June 25, 2013

Sherrilyn Ifill, president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, talks to reporters outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on Tuesday to strike down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, disappointed civil rights activists outside the court said it is now up to Congress to act.

Under a blazing June sun, representatives of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, as well as civil rights lawyers J. Gerald Hebert and Armand Derfner, took to a bank of microphones at the foot of the court's steps to pledge their commitment to fighting the justices' 5-4 ruling to strike Section 4. That section lays out the formula used to determine which jurisdictions must seek permission before making certain changes in voting-related laws.

Sherrilyn Ifill, president and director-counsel of the NAACP legal defense fund, said they will push members of Congress to bolster the Voting Rights Act, which she said the court undermined in its decision.